LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-106

K.SUBRAMANIAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On August 08, 2016
K.SUBRAMANIAN Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 4th respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai, vide Na.Ka.No. 081627/W3/E3/2009, dated 18.11.2009 withholding the increment of the petitioner for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect and the subsequent proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Chennai, vide Na.Ka.No.078377/C5/E3/2009, dated 19.03.2010 upholding and adopting the same and quash the above orders.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the above Writ Petition are summarised as follows:

(3.) The impugned order imposing major punishment is vitiated. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the discrepancy in the proceedings dated 27.12.2009 and the manner in which it was cancelled by the third respondent. On merits, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Examiner and the Chief Examiner who are also responsible for the mistake in recording the marks in the answer script were not proceeded against and the petitioner alone is singled out even though the mistake is not that of the petitioner alone. In this regard, the petitioner also referred to the model examination mark sheet wherein the Assistant Examiner and the Chief Examiners are held to be the persons who are personally responsible for any error in recording of correct particulars in the answer script and the marks sheet resulting in non -supply of information for processing by the computer. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the mistake committed by the Assistant Examiner and the Chief Examiner, for wrongly writing the actual marks obtained by the candidate is admitted by the respondents 3 and 4 even in their preliminary notice and that the failure to proceed against the examiners would establish that there is discrimination without any explanation.